| |||||||||||||
This is funny...This is funny...Posted Dec 29, 2010 8:47 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: Not again by Nick Parent article: Ext4 filesystem hits Android, no need to fear data loss (ars technica)
The most popular SQL database in the most popular mode only offers atomicity but not durability. The fact that it remains the most popular despite that says volumes about what peeple need (as opposed to want). People ask for durability when they need atomicity - but that's because, as you've said, usually developers don't know what they need (they usually know what they want, but that's different thing).
(Log in to post comments)
This is funny... Posted Dec 30, 2010 12:16 UTC (Thu) by Nick (guest, #15060) [Link]
Well I thought MyIASM lack of ACID was widely derided and apparently updates weren't even atomic versus crash recovery, and they now default to using innodb engine which is full ACID.
But the article didn't really mention durability. It mentioned lack of integrity, whereas durability seems like it was implied ("MyISAM tables effectively always operate in autocommit = 1 mode").
You can definitely turn off fsync on RDBMS which I think is used to do bulk populates of a new database. But there is definitely that point of populating the thing to transitioning to live data when you need a durable point too. But this is because crash recovery at this point is trivial (recreate the db) compared to the larger cost of fsync.
|
|||||||||||||